Open Source: What’s going on with the Knox cattle dam?

MOUNT VERNON — One of the most frequently asked questions we receive through emails and our Open Source forum is what’s happening in the cattle dam lawsuit. Especially in light of earlier statements that crews must complete construction on the dam by Dec. 31.

Common Pleas Judge Richard Wetzel held a status conference call with city officials and counsel for parties involved in the case on Oct. 31.

At the conclusion of the call, Wetzel requested additional information from project engineers AK Hydro, the city, and Jack Harris of Intercept Management.

Harris is the court-appointed receiver for one of the defendants in the lawsuit, The Landings Property Owners Association.

The parties must file a supplemental report by Nov. 7. Wetzel will hold another conference call on Wednesday, Nov. 12.

Here’s the latest update in the five-year cattle dam court case.

Construction timeline

To recap, the Knox County Board of Commissioners contributed $1 million in American Rescue Plan Act money for dam remediation. Since the city is coordinating the work, the commissioners gave the money to the City of Mount Vernon. The city encumbered the money for dam repairs.

Harris and city officials previously said the city must spend ARPA money by Dec. 31. This is a preferred deadline, not an actual one as it relates to ARPA funds.

Entities have until Dec. 31, 2026, to spend the money. However, Mount Vernon Mayor Matt Starr requested a completion date of Dec. 31, 2025.

Depending on which solution the parties agree to, the contractor could substantially complete the cattle dam repairs by year’s end. Final landscaping and seeding would occur in the spring.

The solution is what is in contention.

The two-pond solution and possible loan

In an August public meeting, Harris outlined three options for repairing the dam: full reconstruction ($1.1 million), single-pond construction ($303,525), and two-pond construction ($701,525).

Harris recommends the two-pond solution for the cattle dam repair. In a court motion filed on Oct. 27, he states that the solution best balances the priorities of the communities’ safety and the cost and financial burden imposed on them.

It not only exceeds local stormwater management requirements but also makes the best use of the ARPA funds without needing to burden property owners with appreciable assessments to cover debt service.

The city has encumbered $634,500 of the ARPA money for construction work.

Because the original cost for the two-pond option exceeded the available ARPA money, Harris said a $200,000 loan was necessary to cover the additional cost.

However, he found a way to dispose of sediment at a local landfill, which will lower expenses. Additionally, he negotiated a lower construction cost of $635,200.

Because the $635,200 does not include potential cost overruns, Harris said the loan would cover any overruns. The “responsible parties” would repay the loan.

Park National Bank agreed to provide a five-year loan, if needed, with backing from the Ohio Water Development Authority (OWDA) at an interest rate of 6.5%.

Harris said he prefers a one-time assessment to homeowners to settle the loan instead of a five-year term with payments.

Defendants prefer the single-pond option

Attorney Stephen Chappelear represents a group of homeowners known as the Long Defendants. They live in The Landings subdivision and are named in the suit.

He filed a motion on Oct. 31 opposing the two-pond solution, citing the following points:

•Why would there be cost overruns if the contractor is under contract?

•What are the loan arrangements?

•The “responsible parties” are not identified.

Chappelear said the Long Defendants prefer the single-pond plan. It costs less, can be completed with available ARPA funds, and carries no cost or potential liability to the Long Defendants or other potentially responsible parties.

“The [option] the receiver is proposing has significant potential for a lot more fighting and litigation over the next months to a year to fight over who’s going to pay that additional [$200,000] amount,” Chappelear said.

Chappelear also contends that Harris has not provided documentation to support the claim that the single-pond option has higher maintenance costs or that ARPA funds cannot be used for maintenance.

“Assuming that the Long Defendants, among others, will be paying for mowing and vegetation control at the lake going forward under either of the two plans under consideration, their wishes should be paramount,” his motion states.

Harris responded that his recommendation is not just for the Long Defendants, but also for the residents of the subdivision.

He believes the single-pond option will affect home values through the introduction of infill trees, vegetation, and bugs resulting from a single pond.

He also noted that the defendants have not paid money to a homeowners’ association for cattle dam maintenance.

“I think if there is a payment that has to happen over the next five years, it’s just repaying what hasn’t been paid in the past to get it to where it should be so that it’s safe for the community,” Harris said.

Cattle dam safety considerations

Mount Vernon City Engineer Brian Ball said the single-pond option barely meets stormwater standards and is barely out of the jurisdiction of a Class 1 dam.

“If we were to retain any more water, it would become a Class 1 dam. If we were to lower the embankment or change the embankment, it would not meet the stormwater requirements,” he said.

Ball also said that if the Ohio Department of Natural Resources or the Army Corps of Engineers changes the rules, the dam could once again become a Class 1 dam.

If dredging or future maintenance accidentally enlarges the lake, it could also become a Class 1 dam.

Additionally, Ball said the single-pond option increases the risk of downstream flooding.

The two-pond option has less risk of clogging, holds more water, and can sustain a fishery to help control larvae and unwanted insects.

Chappelear contends that, according to AK Hydro, the single-pond option meets stormwater requirements, does not mention worsening the potential for downstream flooding, and raises no concerns.

He said that if it involves what is good for the City of Mount Vernon, the city should be involved.

“If they want to have a certain configuration of two ponds for their stormwater management system, that’s fine, but the city should be paying for it, not foisting that on a few homeowners in a subdivision,” he said.

Legacy risk and cost

Attorneys discussed other points relating to proposed options.

Judge Wetzel noted that $200,000 would be a 30% cost overrun, “which would raise eyebrows anywhere.”

He said a 10% or 15% overrun is more likely the type of overrun on other construction projects. That means additional assessments would be in the range of $63,500 to $90,000, not $200,000.

Wetzel said cost is a factor when selecting an option and how that cost affects the parties involved in the case.

The other consideration is “What is the legacy risk and cost if we do the minimal today, and we have another problem five, 10, or 15 years down the road?”

In the supplemental report due Nov. 7, Wetzel requested details on four things:

•Does AK Hydro have a preference between the one-or two-pond options in terms of risks and cost, and why?

•More details about the loan: the terms, OWDA participation, and the likely cost of a 10% , 15%, and 20% cost overrun if it is divided among the 74 homeowners listed in the case.

•What a five-year loan will cost, including if it gets rolled over into a 20- or 30-year loan.

•Will the city continue in some role, whether it is inspections, monitoring stormwater compliance, or ultimately managing it, if the court so orders?